text:
- Font:
- +
- -
Guests: John Feehery, Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, James Peterson, Tom Kline, Robert Buehner
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, GUEST HOST: Dream a little dream.
Let`s play some HARDBALL.
Good evening. I`m Michael Smerconish in Washington for Chris
Leading off tonight: Dream Act lite. For years, Democrats have tried
to pass the Dream Act, and for years, Republicans have stopped them. So
today, President Obama issued an executive order that will stop the
deportations of most illegal immigrants who arrived here as children. Is
this a blatantly political play for the critical Latino vote? You betcha.
And we`ll break down the politics at the top of the program.
Plus, President Obama and Mitt Romney offer starkly different visions
for fixing the economy. Romney says trust the private sector. President
Obama says that`s another way of saying, Let`s try those Bush policies all
over again. My question, can Barack Obama win reelection without offering
some new vision for how to get the economy going again?
Also, could race be a bigger factor in the election than we thought?
Using Google searches, a Harvard researcher says racism cost Barack Obama 3
to 5 points in 2008 and could sink him this time.
And the Sandusky trial. One thing we`re learning is that many people
knew what was going on for a long time. So why did it take so long for
people to speak up?
Finally, Mitt Romney`s bus tour got under way today, and with it,
someone with a sense of humor driving an SUV with a fake dog strapped on
top. It, of course, is in the "Sideshow."
We begin with the president`s announcement today on immigration.
Howard Fineman is the editorial director for the Huffington Post Media
Group Maria Teresa Kumar is the executive director of Voto Latino, and both
are MSNBC political analysts.
Let me get you all caught up by hearing exactly what was said, first
by the president on this matter. The president had the following to say
when he made this announcement in the Rose Garden.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Effective immediately,
the Department of Homeland Security is taking steps to lift the shadow of
deportation from these young people.
Over the next few months, eligible individuals who do not present a
risk to national security or public safety will be able to request
temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work
This is a temporary stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources
wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven,
patriotic young people. It is the -- it is the right thing to do.
SMERCONISH: And then late this afternoon, Mitt Romney reacted to the
president`s announcement.
MITT ROMNEY (R-MA), FMR. GOV., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I believe the
status of young people who come here through no fault of their own is an
important matter to be considered and should be solved on a long-term basis
so they know what their future would be in this country.
I think the action that the president took today makes it more
difficult to reach that long-term solution. I`d like to see legislation
that deals with this issue. And I happen to agree with Marco Rubio as he
(INAUDIBLE) this issue. He said that this is an important matter, that we
have to find a long-term solution, but that the president`s action makes
reaching a long-term solution more difficult.
If I`m president, we`ll do our very best to have that kind of long-
term solution.
SMERCONISH: Howard Fineman, I think I know how it plays with the
respective bases of the parties, both the R`s and the D`s, but the critical
question is how does it play with the I`s, the independents?
Well, that`s one reason why Mitt Romney was being as careful as he was
here, I thought. He was saying, yes, it`s -- long-term, not short-term.
He wasn`t denouncing it, and I think that`s important. That`s because it`s
a close question.
If you`re talking about independent -- if you`re talking about swing
voters as independents, then a lot of those swing voters are Latinos, and I
think this is very important for them and a plus for the president.
If you`re talking about white working-class Americans in states such
as Ohio and North Carolina, in Nevada and elsewhere, in Florida, that are
swing states, also, then I think it`s a closer question. It`s --
obviously, it`s a very political thing. Obviously, it`s not about the one
number topic in the country and in the election, which is the economy. And
some of those independent voters don`t like moves that look too political.
So for them, I think it could be a turn-off.
SMERCONISH: You heard Governor Romney`s invoke-tion of Marco Rubio`s
FINEMAN: Yes.
SMERCONISH: Did his stock for vice president go sky-high today?
FINEMAN: Well, I think his stock was already going sky-high, and I
think, in part, that the Obama campaign sees that and they want to get in
there ahead of the possibility of Rubio becoming quite possibly the running
They don`t want to look like they`re reacting to Rubio. And also,
look, the president needs some forward motion on something. It`s kind of
like the thing, In case of emergency, break glass, OK?
FINEMAN: This was kind of in case of emergency, break glass, let`s do
this Hispanic thing now.
SMERCONISH: And Maria...
SMERCONISH: A cynic would say, Let`s look at the states that will be
impacted by this -- Florida, Colorado, Virginia, Nevada. I mean, it`s half
of those that are the swing states.
MARIA TERESA KUMAR, VOTO LATINO, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: It`s swing
states. But I think Howard is right. Had President Obama done this six or
seven months ago, the Latino community would have remembered and he would
be -- he would have fixed his enthusiasm gap that is present now. But now
-- and moderates by now would have forgotten this initial stuff that he
Now moderates are going to say, Wait a second, I don`t have a job.
This is really uncomforting (ph) for me because why aren`t you talking
about jobs and why are you providing special privileges?
However, what Obama -- the Obama campaign has done smartly is
basically saying, You know what? We`re going to go out before Rubio, out
before Romney, and we`re going to own this media campaign and this media
messaging. So whatever Rubio or Romney does now, it`s going to be very
difficult for them to actually own this -- this issue.
SMERCONISH: Speaking of Senator Rubio, he issued a statement himself
on this issue today. And we`ve got it. We can put it up on the screen so
that everybody can take a look at Marco Rubio`s I`d call it lukewarm
statement on Obama`s executive order.
"There is broad support for the idea," he wrote, "that we should
figure out a way to help kids who are undocumented through no fault of
their own, but there`s also broad consensus that it should be done in a way
that does not encourage illegal immigration in the future. Today`s
announcement will become welcome news for many of these kids desperate for
an answer, but it`s a short-term answer to a long-term problem."
What does this mean politically?
KUMAR: I think he`s right, is that Rubio`s -- Rubio`s -- the
legislation that he wants to propose is actually creating a path to
legalization and residency. President Obama`s does neither, neither
citizenship nor residency. It just basically provides the opportunity for
a kid to get a job or go to the military.
It`s a big difference, though, between Romney and President Obama is
that Romney has only wanted to support Dream Act and that is only for the
military. And that really ruffled some feathers, not just Latino feathers
but also a lot of moderate and progressives who are saying, Wait, these
young people are -- they can sacrifice their life for our country, but they
can`t be doctors or accountants or engineers? That doesn`t make any sense.
SMERCONISH: Howard, I thought of Newt Gingrich. When I heard the
announcement today, it reminded me of what I thought I heard the former
House speaker saying on the campaign trail that incurred the wrath of his
GOP opponents.
FINEMAN: Yes. Well, one thing that the White House is doing here is
trying to keep Mitt Romney in the corner that Mitt Romney put himself in...
SMERCONISH: As a conservative.
FINEMAN: ... during the primary season in order to outflank Rick
Perry and others on the immigration issue. And they`re trying to back him
into the corner by going as far as they have.
I totally agree it`s a halfway measure, and if you read the three-page
letter -- order from Secretary Napolitano, you can see that it really isn`t
a sweeping thing here. And they can slow walk it to the extent they want.
But politically, I think it was a -- overall, it was a pretty shrewd
stroke on the part of the president.
SMERCONISH: Maria, let`s all watch because in a Republican
presidential debate, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney sparred over immigration
policy, with Gingrich portraying Romney, you`ll remember, as heartless.
Romney says he`s enforcing the law.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN, MODERATOR: Is he still the most anti-immigrant
think of the four of us, yes.
BLITZER: Go ahead, Governor.
ROMNEY: That`s -- that`s simply inexcusable. That`s inexcusable.
GINGRICH: You tell me what language you would use to describe to
somebody who thinks that deporting a grandmother or a grandfather from
their family -- just tell me the language. I`m perfectly happy for you to
explain what language you`d use.
ROMNEY: I -- Mr. Speaker, I think I described following the law as it
exists in this country, which is to say, I`m not going around and rounding
people up and deporting them. What I said was, people who come here
legally, get a work permit. People who do not come here legally do not get
a work permit. Those who don`t get work will tend over time to self-
SMERCONISH: Maria, what the president put forth today, does it really
change things? Maybe this is a naive question on my behalf, but are the
sort of folks that he`s talking about susceptible really being deported as
things stand right now?
KUMAR: It actually -- it does -- it does give relief to a lot of the,
I guess, biggest advocates within the immigration movement, which have been
young dreamers, young people. They`re the ones that have been basically
staging hunger strikes, walking around the county. I mean, they`re the
ones that have really created this media swell that has been very difficult
for the Obama administration to back away from.
I think, though, what Romney has to -- I really caution Romney with is
that, again, he`s the one that says that he`s for some sort of immigration,
but he has strange bedfellows. Chris Kobach (ph), the architect between
(ph) the Arizona SB-1070 legislation, is one of -- is one of his largest
supporters. The fact that he has Pete Wilson, the one that is basically
chairman of the California Caucus -- that`s actually -- of his campaign in
California -- that`s a dirty word among the Latino community.
So he`s saying one thing, but the folks that he`s (ph) actually moving
his campaign along (ph) is very anti-Latino, anti-immigration.
FINEMAN: And speaking of strange bedfellows, Steve King, the
Republican from Iowa, has already said, I believe, that he wants to sue the
administration over what the president just announced today. Iowa is a
swing state.
Now, everybody in Iowa knows Steve King already, so there`s no news
there. But to the extent that the Obama campaign in Iowa can tie Romney to
Steve King on immigration with this latest play, it`s marginally helpful to
the president in that state.
SMERCONISH: Quick question for you, Howard, if I might. The timing
of this -- why today? It`s the beginning of summer. This is a serious and
big-picture issue. Was, politically speaking, this the time to drop it?
FINEMAN: Well, I think there`s a big political meeting coming up next
SMERCONISH: There is.
FINEMAN: ... involving the Latino community. That`s one. And I
think the president wants to change the subject, quite frankly, after
several weeks of dismal news on the economy and the politics of he economy.
Don`t forget, to some extent, the president is running a cultural
campaign against Romney`s economic campaign. He`s got a big gay rights
event going on at the White House today. He made this announcement on
Latinos. So he`s going cultural to change the subject from the economy.
SMERCONISH: Quick answer...
KUMAR: And the...
SMERCONISH: Was today the time to do this?
KUMAR: Absolutely because the Supreme Court is going to come out on
their decision with...
SMERCONISH: With Arizona?
KUMAR: ... Arizona SB-1070, which basically today, that congressional
members -- Lindsey Graham said that immigration is -- is literally a
congressional issue. So now they`re basically forcing the Supreme Court to
say, Wait a second. The states can`t be deciding. So it`s going to be
interesting how it plays out.
SMERCONISH: The days of waiting until Labor Day for the starting gun
to be fired -- long over.
FINEMAN: True.
SMERCONISH: This maybe is under way. Thank you, Howard Fineman.
SMERCONISH: That`s also true. Thank you, Maria Teresa Kumar.
Coming up: President Obama and Mitt Romney offer two very different
visions of how to fix the economy. Mitt Romney wants to leave it to the
private sector. President Obama says that`s what got us into this mess.
This is HARDBALL, the place for politics.
SMERCONISH: John McCain is condemning the "Dirty, Angry Money"
flowing into the presidential campaign. The Arizona Republican said
Sheldon Adelson`s multi-million-dollar contribution to Mitt Romney`s allies
means foreign money from Adelson`s casino in Macao is pouring into the
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: Much of Mr. Adelson`s casino profits
that go to him come from his casino in Macao.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Which says what?
MCCAIN: Which says that, obviously, maybe in a roundabout way,
foreign money is coming into an American political campaign.
SMERCONISH: McCain added that we need to have a limit on the flow of
campaign money, and that corporations are not people.
We`ll be right back.
OBAMA: If you want to give the policies of the last decade another
try, then you should vote for Mr. Romney.
ROMNEY: He`s been president for three-and-a-half years. And talk is
cheap. Action speaks very loud.
SMERCONISH: Welcome back to HARDBALL. We may have reached an
inflection point in the campaign when President Obama and Mitt Romney faced
off against each other yesterday in dueling speeches in Ohio. Mr. Obama
tried to frame the election as a choice between his economic policies and
the Republicans` failed agenda of the past. Mitt Romney, for his part,
tried to make it a referendum on the president`s last three-and-a-half
years in office.
Joining me now, Joan Walsh, an MSNBC political analyst and editor-at-
large for Salon, and John Feehery is a Republican strategist. Thank you
both for being here.
President Obama held up Governor Romney`s economic policies as a
carbon copy of a failed George W. Bush agenda.
OBAMA: The economic vision of Mr. Romney and his allies in Congress
was tested a just few years ago. We tried this. Their policies did not
grow the economy. They did not grow the middle class. They did not reduce
our debt. Why would we think that they would work better this time?
SMERCONISH: Joan Walsh, is "blame Bush" still potent?
JOAN WALSH, SALON.COM, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: You know, I think
polls show it is. Voters blame Bush, Michael. But I think he did more
than that.
I think an interesting thing that the president did -- he`s making the
case, I`m not just digging out of eight years of Republican leadership,
lack of leadership, I`m digging out of 30 years.
And he really told quite a telling story about how we`ve disinvested
in our middle class over those years. We had wages begin to stagnate and
decline. We had women, moms going into the workforce, families trying to
keep up. We had families then borrowing against their houses, that was
true, because their wages weren`t keeping up.
We -- you know, starting with Ronald Reagan, we disinvested in public
education. We made -- here in California, the UC system was free until
Ronald Reagan. We`ve seen college tuition costs double and even triple.
So it`s a long-term story that kind of culminates in the crash of 2008
when things really fell apart. So I think...
SMERCONISH: But I think -- I guess...
WALSH: ... he`s trying to make people...
SMERCONISH: I guess what I`m asking is...
WALSH: ... understand that this is not something that just started.
Go ahead.
SMERCONISH: I guess, though, what I`m asking is that even if
Americans buy into that portion of the logic, at this stage of the
election, aren`t they looking for more that`s forward-looking?
John Feehery, I guess I`m making your argument for you.
JOHN FEEHERY, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, I -- the big problem I
have with this argument -- well, I have a lot of problems with the
argument. First of all, George Bush is not on the ballot. President Obama
is. And this is a -- all elections are about -- especially presidential
reelections, are about how has the president done and what is his vision
for the next four years.
So this is a curious time to blame George Bush. I think it`s -- it`s
long into his administration. He could have made that case in the first
year, but this is, you know, three-and-a-half years into his
And the job growth has been so stagnant and so remarkably lousy that I
just don`t think it works with most voters. Now, I know what Joan`s
saying. There`s a poll saying that you (ph) still blame Bush. But Bush is
not on the ballot, and I don`t think it`s going to work for President
SMERCONISH: Well, here`s...
FEEHERY: If he wants to win this election, he`s got to hope for two
things, that the economy improves and that he gives a vision for the
SMERCONISH: Here`s what he did say looking forward. The president
laid out his ideas for moving, as the campaign slogan says, forward.
Here`s that audio.
OBAMA: I believe we need a plan for better education and training and
for energy independence...
OBAMA: ... and for new research and innovation, for rebuilding our
infrastructure. And if you agree with me, if you believe this economy
grows best when everybody gets a fair shot and everybody does their fair
share and everybody plays by the same set of rules, then I ask you to stand
with me for a second term as president!
SMERCONISH: Here`s the part that I`m not getting from him, Joan. I`m
not getting the part that says, If the GOP maintains control of the House
and if there`s continued -- I`ll say the word -- intransigence on the part
of the Republicans who provide the leadership in the House, then how is he
going to get any of these things accomplished?
And frankly, I haven`t heard it from Governor Romney, either. Neither
of them, to my way of thinking, has addressed the hyper-partisanship and
how they`re going to get beyond that. Are you hearing something, Joan
Walsh, that I`m not hearing?
WALSH: You know, the one thing I did hear, Michael, was that he said
repeatedly that it`s up to the voters to break the stalemate. He did point
to that intransigence over and over. And he also pointed back even to
Ronald Reagan, who I criticized before, but he really did -- at the end of
the speech did something important which said, look, our post-war America
was strong because we had a bipartisan consensus about the role of the
government in growing the economy.
It wasn`t that government did it alone. It wasn`t that government
controlled everything. It was that we built roads and we funded R&D, and
we funded schools and public universities, because that made smart people
and it made businesses strong. And we are stuck because this Republican
Party has moved so far to the right they won`t even -- they won`t meet me
where Ronald Reagan met Democrats or where Dwight Eisenhower or Richard
Nixon met Democrats.
So he`s saying his goal -- and we can -- the three of us can disagree
about whether this is going to be effective -- is, he`s saying you know the
thing to do, voters? You have to break the stalemate. You have to tell
the Republican Party why have you gone off a cliff and why have you lost
your minds?
SMERCONISH: But, John Feehery, we don`t have a parliamentary system.
And if the status quo is maintained, I`m not sure that anybody on
either side of the aisle is going to be happy with where we stand come
FEEHERY: The last time the Democrats had control of everything, the
next midterm election was such an overwhelming rejection of President Obama
and the Democratic leadership`s policies that it was historic.
The 2010 elections were absolutely historic. I`m glad that Joan
mentioned Ronald Reagan, because Ronald Reagan used to say the nine most
terrifying words of the English language, I`m from the government and I`m
here to help.
And that is the beautiful thing about these two speeches in Ohio
because they give us a philosophical divide here. If you believe that the
government is going to help you with all of your problems, you`re going to
vote for President Obama. If you believe the private sector is going to
create jobs, you vote for Mitt Romney.
And that is a philosophical divide right there. And I think, you
know, the government is so completely unpopular with most voters right now.
Polls show it at the bottom of all the ratings. This is a good place for
the Romney campaign to be.
WALSH: Oh, come on.
SMERCONISH: Joan Walsh, does the president need to offer -- does the
president need to offer something new, something more than we received
yesterday? He`s been called the only adult in the room in the past on
these issues. And I think that proposition`s being tested now.
WALSH: Yes, frankly, he does need to offer more than that.
And I have said that to you for a long time, Michael. I think he was
not concrete enough about exactly what his policies would do. And
honestly, what he did today with his, you know, individual DREAM Act
maneuver, I think is going to be way more important than any speeches that
he gives.
He has got to and he should have been really looking for as many
things he can on his own, via executive orders, that can move the needle
for people and do it on jobs as well. I don`t think that he is outlining a
bold enough jobs plan. I don`t think he`s saying this is how we`re going
to put people to work in enough detail.
Even yesterday, he talked about how we kind of began to come out of
the recession. But he even didn`t talk about his own Recovery Act, which
actually did help us get to a certain point.
Now, Mitt Romney...
SMERCONISH: I think you make -- I think you -- I think you make a
good observation.
SMERCONISH: Unfortunately, John, I`m out of time.
SMERCONISH: Both of them, I think, have left something to be desired
in this regard.
SMERCONISH: I have got to say thanks to Joan Walsh and John Feehery.
FEEHERY: Thanks.
SMERCONISH: Up next: Mitt Romney`s can`t -- Mitt Romney can`t outrun
that infamous story of how he put the dog on the roof for the family
vacation. Well, find out what happened today on the campaign trail.
That`s next in the "Sideshow."
And if you want to follow me on Twitter, all you need to do is figure
out to smell Smerconish.
This is HARDBALL, the place for politics.
SMERCONISH: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Time now for the "Sideshow."
First up, Jon Stewart took on Senate Banking Committee member Jim
DeMint yesterday for his gentlemen questioning of J.P. Morgan Chase CEO
Jamie Dimon.
Take a look at this.
JON STEWART, HOST, "THE DAILY SHOW WITH JON STEWART": They didn`t
just haul Jamie Dimon in to tell him how nice and good he is and huge he
STEWART: They also brought him in there to talk about how terrible
they, the Senate, are.
SEN. JIM DEMINT (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: We can hardly sit in judgment of
your losing $2 billion. We lose twice that every day here in Washington.
STEWART: Does Senator DeMint think that spending money is the same as
losing money?
STEWART: You know, $10 million here yesterday, but now all I see is
this (EXPLETIVE DELETED) highway.
STEWART: I don`t know understand. I don`t know understand what...
STEWART: Where`s my money?
STEWART: We`re going to have to dig this up and find my money.
SMERCONISH: Stewart is right. There`s a big difference between
building something and blowing it.
Next, Mitt Romney just can`t shake the dog on the roof story. Romney
is on a bus tour through New Hampshire and guess who`s right there with
him? That`s right, an SUV called the Romney Mobile with a fake dog
strapped to the roof. You can see it there. Seamus would be proud.
Next up, in Michigan, two Democratic female state legislators were
banned from speaking on the statehouse floor this week, one seemingly for
referring to her vagina in a heated debate over an anti-abortion bill.
Here`s Democrat Lisa Brown.
LISA BROWN (D), MICHIGAN STATE REPRESENTATIVE: I have not asked you
to adopt and adhere to my religious beliefs. Why are you asking me to
adopt yours? And, finally, Mr. Speaker, I`m flattered that you`re all so
interested in my vagina, but no means no.
SMERCONISH: Brown later told The Daily Beast -- quote -- "If I said
elbow, would I have gotten in trouble? If you`re regulating vaginas, I
don`t know how we`re supposed to not talk about them."
The second lawmaker, Barb Byrum, was told she was out of order for
arguing for her amendment, which would force men getting vasectomies to
show that their life was at risk or prove that they had a medical
emergency. A spokesman for the speaker said the decision was about the
need to keep the floor debate civil and mature.
And, lastly, Florida Governor Rick Scott tells "The Miami Herald" that
he voted by provisional ballot in 2006. Why, you might ask? -- quote --
"`You can`t vote because you`re dead. You passed away, according to our
voter rolls,` Scott says he was told."
Well, after providing his I.D., they allowed him to vote with a
provisional ballot. It turns out the governor was born the same day as
another Richard Scott who had passed away.
Up next, the race factor. A new study says that Barack Obama would
have won even bigger four years ago were it not for race. What does it
mean for November`s election? That`s ahead.
You`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics.
SUE HERERA, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Sue Herera with your CNBC "Market
Big gains for stocks ahead of the Greek elections on Sunday, the Dow
Jones industrial average up 115 points, the S&P up 14, and the Nasdaq rises
36 points. Facebook shares finishing up more than 6 percent following a
report that the networking site will seek to consolidate shareholder
lawsuits against the economy.
And on the economic front, consumer sentiment slipped in June to a
six-month low. And industrial production fell in May, the second decline
in three months.
That`s it from CNBC, first in business worldwide -- and now back to
SMERCONISH: Welcome back to HARDBALL.
A new study makes the argument that despite conventional wisdom that
prejudice was not a major factor in Obama`s election, there`s evidence he
would have won by an even larger margin if not for racial animus. Using a
Google tool that tracks the frequency of search words in different parts of
the country, researchers teased out which regions used racist search terms
most frequently, in this case the N-word.
And it turns out the N-word was included in roughly the same number of
Google searches as terms like The Daily Show or migraine or even economist.
But it`s where geographically those Google searches were done that makes
the difference.
Seth Stephens-Davidowitz conducted the study. He`s a doctoral
candidate in economics as Harvard. Dr. James Peterson is a professor at
Lehigh University.
Seth, I get the fact that people in the Bible Belt are prone to
Googling God. I get that, in L.A., people Google Lakers. You`re telling
me that we Americans Google porn more than weather?
SETH STEPHENS-DAVIDOWITZ, HARVARD ECONOMIC DOCTORAL CANDIDATE: Yes.
And Smerconish is Googled in Pennsylvania, you will be happy to know.
SMERCONISH: All right. Why you mentioned that in the same sentence
as those other two, I`m not, but that`s OK.
SMERCONISH: So let`s talk about the political significance of what
you have learned.
There`s a graph I want to put up on the screen, if we can. And this
documents the research that you have performed. There it is. It shows
that in media markets with the highest frequency of racially charged
searches, Obama underperformed in the `08 election relative to predictions.
Would you expand on this for us?
STEPHENS-DAVIDOWITZ: Yes.
Basically, you can predict how many votes Obama should have received
based on how many other votes other Democratic candidates received, for
example, John Kerry in 2004, also the fact that Democrats were a lot more
popular in 2008 compared to 2004.
SMERCONISH: In what parts of the country? Give me specific examples
where people were more prone than a national average to search the N-word?
STEPHENS-DAVIDOWITZ: I mean, the point of this research is obviously
not to point out and put down any particular part of the country.
The search rate was highest in West Virginia, Western Pennsylvania,
Eastern Ohio, Upstate New York, Southern Mississippi. But it turned out to
be relatively common throughout the United States.
SMERCONISH: And the net-net of this is that you say -- you
extrapolate the data and say there was a 3 percent to 5 percent decrease in
the Obama vote in `08?
STEPHENS-DAVIDOWITZ: From racial -- continuing racial prejudice in
the United States, yes.
SMERCONISH: Professor Peterson, does this make sense to you?
I should say the premise is built on the notion that if you`re
searching for the N-word, then there`s something that can be implied. I
frankly have scratched my noggin and tried to figure out why you would
search the N-word in any circumstance. And I can`t come up with anything.
JAMES PETERSON, LEHIGH UNIVERSITY: Well, Seth can probably articulate
this to you better than I can.
Most of these folk who are doing these N-word are looking for sites
that basically depict African-Americans in negative ways, tell sort of
racialized jokes and things -- and things of that nature.
And I have got to tell you, Michael, I`m not surprised by this, but I
think it`s very, very empowering to have the quantitative data to sort of
match up with a lot of the qualitative analyses that we have been doing on
shows like -- like HARDBALL and other shows over the course of the last
couple of years, because when it gets down to brass tacks, we have been
talking about some of these issues.
We know that racism is still out there, and we tend to think of it as
only functioning or only existing amongst a minority of folks in certain
regions, but this Google search data is really, really important in terms
of letting us know not just how widespread it is, but the fact that it has
And it`s not just on presidential elections. I mean, that`s one way
of thinking about this. But, as Seth points out in his article, one of the
most important reasons to consider here is that racial animus still affects
racial black folk all over this country.
SMERCONISH: Seth, it seems to me that if 3 percent to 5 percent of
folks had gone for Obama who didn`t, we would have been talking a landslide
of Reaganesque proportions.
PETERSON: That`s right.
SMERCONISH: Is that what you`re concluding?
STEPHENS-DAVIDOWITZ: I think you have to recall just how unpopular
Republicans were in the 2008 election cycle.
So, George Bush had one of the lowest approval ratings in history at
the time of the election. Remember, Obama was consistently comparing
McCain to George Bush, trying to tie them together. And, also, McCain made
some big campaign blunders, such as seeming to not be able to understand
the problems of the economy.
SMERCONISH: Did you take into consideration the president`s -- did
you take into consideration that the president`s race was an asset in
certain quarters, whether there were write liberals voting for or more
inclined to do so because of his race, or a near-monolithic African-
American vote that perhaps boosted turnout in those communities? Was that
something you contemplated?
STEPHENS-DAVIDOWITZ: Yes.
I calculated that he gained about 1 percentage point of the vote total
from increased African-American support and turnout. I don`t think there
was a huge -- and I looked at the data a whole bunch of ways, and I didn`t
see -- seem to find a big effect from increased white support due to his
As you mentioned, we think of that as more a liberal position, and
these individuals were likely to support any Democratic candidate. So...
SMERCONISH: Professor Peterson, do you think that Seth`s research
comes as news in Boston and in Chicago, meaning at the Romney and at the
Obama headquarters? In other words, have they already factored this in and
are they campaigning in a way that takes into account these potential
PETERSON: Yes, I think both campaigns have already sort of factored
in their sense about this data.
In fact, I think if you look back at the Republican presidential
primaries, and people were asking the questions, what I think are
legitimate questions, why is birtherism still around, why do we see these
racial dog whistles being played by Newt Gingrich and by Rick Santorum and
by other folk?
Well, part of the reason why we have seen that stuff is because of
this data that Seth has put on the table for us here, which is there are --
there`s a -- there`s a significant -- statistically significant percentage
of the voting population that will be impacted and sometimes charged up by
that kind of racialized politics.
And so -- so, yes, I think on both sides, they`re aware of this. But
think about a state like Michigan. And if you took -- you know, if you
take three to five points away from -- from Obama in that particular state,
that`s a very, very difficult challenge for the president.
So -- so, it`s interesting information. It`s very, very complex.
But, yes, I do think the campaigns are both already on to it.
SMERCONISH: You know, pundits often talk about the different paths
toward success that the president might entertain and if you apply Seth`s
model, I think what it says because he bears down, he drills on West
Virginia versus Colorado. For those of us conversant about the different
paths, it might mean the western path is the route they should be pursuing
-- they meaning the Obama campaign.
A quick reaction, Professor Peterson.
PETERSON: Yes, I would agree. When you look at some of these
regions and states that Seth has so brilliantly parsed out here, it does
seem like the West Coast and certain areas in the South and those areas are
more populated by the Latino voters are the route to go.
But I assure you that the Obama campaign has multiple calculus and
multiple ways of getting into 270 here.
SMERCONISH: It`s fascinating research. Thank you, gentlemen.
Seth Stephens-Davidowitz and James Peterson, we appreciate your time.
Up next, the Jerry Sandusky trial. We`ll meet an attorney
representing one of the victims in the case.
This is HARDBALL, the place for politics.
SMERCONISH: There`s a big election overseas this weekend and it
could have a huge impact right here at home. The elections in Greece on
Sunday will go a long way to determining whether that country continues
using the euro or drops out of the eurozone. And analysts say if Greece
ditches the euro, it could trigger a global financial crisis on the level
of what happened in the fall of 2008.
We`ll be right back.
SMERCONISH: Welcome back to HARDBALL.
The defense team for former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky is set to
argue their case next week as he fights the 52 charges of sexual abuse he
currently faces -- charges that Sandusky denies.
With me now is Tom Kline. He`s a trial attorney who`s representing a
23-year-old man known as victim number five who testified on Wednesday. I
should also tell you he`s a named partner at the law firm where I`m
Tom, big picture view. What did the prosecution establish this past
TOM KLINE, ATTORNEY FOR ALLEGED SANDUSKY VICTIM: Michael, there was
a compelling case established with eight victims, all young men, all who
came into the courtroom who said that they didn`t want to be there,
buttressed by two independent witnesses, a janitor and the star witness,
Michael McQueary, who is an assistant coach who went to Joe Paterno in 2001
and then to higher ups at Penn State and told them he had witnessed a
horrible incident in the shower room at Penn State.
SMERCONISH: So --
KLINE: It was a dramatic, compelling trial. I was there for every
minute of it.
SMERCONISH: What`s to come next week in your estimation?
KLINE: Well, as of 2:21 this afternoon, the judge entered an order
which allows the defense to call psychological testimony. This is a new
and I think blockbuster event in the trial. It could represent a seismic
shift in the defense of the case.
I saw the defense shaping up to essentially trying to chip away at
the credibility of various witnesses. Now, the defense appears to be ready
to say that Jerry Sandusky had something called histrionic personality
disorder, someone who seeks excessive attention from other individuals.
A really major event occurred this afternoon while we were not in
court. There was no court today and a lot of people were wondering why and
the judge was obviously considering this motion and it appears to be a
shift in strategy by the defense.
SMERCONISH: How has Penn State`s credibility, meaning the
university`s credibility, been impacted by the testimony thus far?
KLINE: Oh, Penn State has suffered tremendously during the course of
this trial. It is now known that literally from 1998 and certainly by
2002, everyone from the janitor to the president of the university knew.
In this trial, it was established that janitors had witnessed events in the
earlier period, and then Mr. McQueary witnessed an event in the shower. It
is terrible for Penn State.
SMERCONISH: How does your -- final question for Attorney Tom Kline -
- how does your client fit into the big picture narrative? I`m not asking
you to summarize his testimony. I think most of us know it. But how does
he fit into the big picture narrative of this case?
KLINE; Sure. He is what I would call a linkage witness. He was a
one-time witness in the shower, but he establishes with so many of these
young men establish, which is that repetitively, there was a pattern which
was systematic which involved grooming, leading to -- getting these boys
either in the shower or alone, and then having some kind of forced,
compulsion on them. That`s really what the story is here. It is a story
that is sordid.
SMERCONISH: Thank you for your time. We appreciate it.
KLINE: My pleasure. Thanks for having me.
SMERCONISH: Robert Buehner was district attorney for Montour County,
Pennsylvania, a neighboring county where all of this allegedly went down.
You said something to me earlier this week on my radio program which I
thought was a great assessment.
You said there had been a lack of professional witnesses. What do
you mean by that?
ROBERT BUEHNER, JR., FMR. MONTOUIR COUNTY, PA DIST. ATTY: There
aren`t any police officers, no CSI investigators, there`s not a coroner,
there`s not a detective. And, really, there aren`t any -- there haven`t
been in experts come on who get paid to testify.
This is all about victims and two eyewitnesses. And it`s unlike the
O.J. case, unlike the Casey Anthony case, it presents a much more difficult
case for a prosecutor, because you don`t have those professional witnesses
there to professional witnesses there to sort of lead the jury along.
You`ve got to do it yourself.
That`s what Joe McGettigan has done. He`s taken this jury in Centre
County as if he were a tour guide for the truth and they`re on the journey
with them. And he`s used the witnesses, the victims if you will, to make
his case.
SMERCONISH: So, Tom just referenced and this is today`s big
headline, even though court wasn`t in session, histrionic personality
Is that going to fly in your neck of the woods?
BUEHNER: It`s not going to even come close to flying. I -- when I
heard this news today, Michael, I immediately thought this is great for the
prosecution. Because the jurors are now going to know a name for something
other than pedophilia that Jerry Sandusky did with these boys. It doesn`t
mean he`s incompetent. It doesn`t mean he`s insane. It just now has
another label.
And I think when they cross-examine whatever psychologist they put on
I think would only enhance the prosecution. I see the jurors just looking
at this and just shaking their head.
SMERCONISH: Bob, if Jerry Sandusky couldn`t handle Bob Costas on a
mobile phone, how could he stand up to cross examination that would come if
he took the stand?
BUEHNER: I think -- to use a football term here -- the only thing
that`s going to happen here, they need a Hail Mary. If you look at the
testimony so far in the testimony presented, especially Thursday afternoon,
the final victim coming forward and saying he was in the basement screaming
as if it were soundproof. Then the trial ended for the weekend.
Those jurors are going to be thinking about that all weekend long.
They`re going to hear those screams. I think they have to -- the defense
has to do a Hail Mary. And that may mean putting Sandusky on the stand. I
think the jurors will want to hear that.
SMERCONISH: Doesn`t that also preclude potentially Mrs. Sandusky
being the Hail Mary? That the testimony that was offered, that ghastly
testimony on Thursday that she was present, that she was upstairs.
BUEHNER: And the victim said at that point as if the room in the
basement was soundproof. Well, it wasn`t soundproof to those jurors.
So I think Sandusky was promised in the opening by the defense in
their statement that he would take the witness stand.
SMERCONISH: We have just a minute or so left together. You were a
close personal friend of Ray Gricar, the Centre County D.A. People
following the case know there was the `98 investigation. Your friend
didn`t prosecute the case. Your friend then disappeared. His computer was
found, et cetera, et cetera.
Talk to me about him. Would he have declined for any reason to move
forward against Penn State?
BUEHNER: He feared no one as a prosecutor. No institution. He had
many cases involving personalities at Penn State. We used to kid him about
it as D.A.s tend to do. He would view that as a challenge. And he would
be aggressive in his pursuit of -- he was a champion for victims. If he
felt there was evidence, he would take it wherever he went.
SMERCONISH: Because you know the blogosphere has gone crazy, with
all sort of conspiracy notions as to how this all fits together. What I`m
hearing from Bob Buehner is you don`t think it fits together at all. You
think his disappearance was unrelated to the Sandusky case.
BUEHNER: Completely. Completely unrelated. There`s no known causal
connection between 1998 and 2005 when a guy`s going out of office with
eight months to go.
SMERCONISH: At this clip -- just 30 seconds left -- this is the
antithesis of O.J. and Lance Ito. I mean, four days in the prosecution
case is about to rest. This thing could rap up next week.
BUEHNER: Absolutely. I think it will. I think the jury will get it
sometime in the mid-part of the week. And by this week next time we should
have a verdict.
SMERCONISH: And the way things stand now, he`s presumed innocent but
BUEHNER: I think the testimony -- the way it was laid up by
SMERCONISH: Thank you, Robert Buehner. I appreciate it.
When we return, let me finish with some Father`s Day advice for
President Obama and Governor Romney.
You`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics.
SMERCONISH: Let me finish tonight with this: Sunday is Father`s Day.
We`ve all received good advice from dear old dad -- sometimes the kind of
council that stays in our headlong after fathers have passed.
It occurs to me some of those timeless nuggets would be good advice
for our politicians, including our presidential aspirants. So today on the
radio, I asked my audience what advice they`ve received from their own
fathers that they`d like to pass on to President Obama and Governor Romney.
I heard some pretty good stuff.
Wendy from Michigan said she hopes whoever is president understands
her father`s advice. You`re not going to like every job you have. But a
job worth having is worth doing well, which she said mean sometimes being
the president is thankless. But you still have to do your best in every
aspect of it.
Phil in Massachusetts said his dad told him your last suit would have
no pockets -- meaning you`re going to leave office as you came in. And be
sure to act in a manner you can hold your head high.
Tony in Indianapolis says nothing good happens after 11. That`s what
his father told him, which he says should mean that politicians not wait
until the 11th hour to take care of the people`s business. Or it might
mean beware of the fundraising schmooze fest or big donor shindigs. They
don`t resonate well when people are worried about their next paycheck.
Via twitter, I received great responses from people like Peg whose
father told her, God gave you two ears and one mouth so that you would
listen twice as much as you speak. I think applies to Republicans and
And Kevin told me, remember what old dads have said. There`s a time
and a place for everything. I think that has a message as to timing and
perhaps knowing when it`s your turn to run for office.
A friend told me that his father said praise in public, criticize in
private. Translated into political speak, that could mean how you treat
your staff, the media, the voters is critical. Every word, every gaffe,
every look will be analyzed in this 24/7 news cycle.
And a producer of mine said his father told him if your friends jump
off a cliff, you don`t have to. Well, what about if your fellow candidates
are all raising their hand against a 10 to 1 ratio of spending cuts to tax
hikes. You don`t have to.
And, finally, from Woks (ph) Smerconish, my father`s parenting advice
-- always be firm, fair, and consistent. That`s a great message to keep in
mind when it comes to every aspect of being president.
Happy Father`s day to all the dads out there.
That`s HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us.
"POLITICS NATION" with Al Sharpton starts right now.
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>


text:
Say hello to our little friend
Hey everyone! Dave here. Just a little update on our 'Birds. We're down in Nashville, and split the first four games of the series and have a double header tonight. Be sure to listen to the game on 560 AM in Memphis or online on their web site. As always, you can also follow live pitch by pitch updates on the game by clicking the "Gameday" link on our homepage next to the batter vs. pitcher match up.
Anyway, remember those horrible storms we had in early May? Well, what you may not realize was that storm created a little friend here at AutoZone Park.
What is that you may ask? Why, it's our little press box plant! It appears to be growing out of the gutter, but we've recently officially adopted it as our plant. Fortunately it rains enough that we don't really have to worry about watering it, so we don't do much but watch it grow.
It's located just off the press box, directly above the first suite to it's left (your right if you're looking at it from the stands). It's circled in blue in the photo below:
Maybe we should name the plant…suggestions are welcome.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Browse: Home / OBAF
Microsoft's Next Killer OS is… SharePoint?
By Guest Authors on October 9, 2008
Reading Mary Jo Foley's Microsoft 2.0 it suddenly struck me: Could Microsoft's next killer OS be SharePoint? Instead of being quite so blatant, Microsoft has taken a quieter back route to achieving the same ends via two related technologies: Baking SharePoint reliance into more and more of its products Requiring users to buy pricey client-access […]
Posted in Strategy | Tagged microsoft, MOSS, OBAF, os, sharepoint, Windows Cloud | 2 Responses


text:
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was enacted in 1965 and later reauthorized as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act in 2001. Now, the Obama administration is asking Congress to reauthorize the Act as ESEA again, in order to raise academic achievement for all students through higher standards and tougher rules of accountability.
In spring 2010, the Obama administration released a new blueprint emphasizing an accountability system that:
- represents a fair and rigorous system to measure student growth
- rewards schools that accelerate student achievement
- identifies and rewards outstanding teachers and leaders
See also:
Promotional Links
How ETS Approaches Testing
Find answers to common questions about the benefits of standardized testing and ETS's dedication to quality and fairness.
NAEP and ETS
ETS has assisted the NAEP program in introducing numerous psychometric and assessment design innovations over the years.


text:
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Maintaining Board Certification Every Two Years
Those were the days.
In 1990, things changed. Board certifications became time limited. To remain "board certified," the ABIM stipulated that doctors had to undergo a Maintenance of Certification (MOC) examination every 10 years to remain board certified, even though no data existed then (or now) that such testing achieves the ABIM's stated goals of promoting "lifelong learning and enhancement of the clinical judgment and skills essential for high quality patient care."
Now things are changing again.
I just received a notice in the mail (pdf here) that states the following: beginning 1 January 2014, the ABIM will require that at least one Maintenance of Certification "activity" be performed every TWO years and for EVERY TWO YEARS thereafter. In addition, doctors will have to earn 100 ABIM "points and complete a patient survey and a patient safety module by December 2018 (in FIVE years and EVERY FIVE YEARS thereafter). That's right: more testing of doctors and no data to support the testing's ability to maintain a quality physician workforce.
For those interested, more information can be found at http://moc2014.abim.org . According to this website, annual cost to physicians will be "about $200 per year" and "If you are maintaining more than one certification, the cost will be the fee of the most expensive certification plus half for each of the others."
Instead of assuring quality, then, it seems doctors are really being asked to improve the ABIM's cash flow. Also, as a result of this initiative doctors will be spending consistently more time away from patients.
It's crazy.
Clearly no one is listening to doctors on the front line. Doctors are already overburdened with too many unproven bureaucratic requirements. Adding these costly, unproven "certification" requirements to things like meaningful use, pay-for-performance, results checking, email answering, patient satisfaction surveys and the like just adds insult to injury. How much time do the members of the ABIM think we have?
How much quality to we impart to our patients when we asked to stare at more and more computer screens rather than care for our patients?
12 comments:
Is this a case of punishing the good guys while trying to weed out the bad ones?
I know most Docs keep up with changes in their field, but there are too many who don't. I don't know how much can change in 2 years, but quite a bit can change over the course of a career.
I lived in a county where bad Docs went to retire after losing their license in some other state - a coastal place with a lax state board, plenty of retirees, fishing and golf.
The damage done to patients has been substantial, and the problems were well known by the medical community and ignored for too long. In the latest case, it took 60 minutes to shame a practice into cutting ties with a rogue oncologist. We had one surgeon who routinely performed one type of surgery while telling patients (and billing) that he was doing something a superior version.
I'm not sure that 2-yr certification is the answer, but should we do with the guys who just aren't competent anymore?
- Thu Apr 11, 07:48:00 AM CDT
- DrWes said...
Anony 07:48 -
Your question is a straw dog. ABIM has no jurisdiction for removing rogue doctors from medical staffs whether they are board certified or not, especially since NO data exists that this certification maintains competency in the first place. As I've covered previously, the ABIM can't even protect the term "board certified" (for instance, we have "board certified" family nurse practitioners now popping up at Walgreens now).
Local administrative and medical staffs of each hospital are better arbiters of poor performers rather than centralized credentialing boards because they're watching all the time, not just every few years.
- Thu Apr 11, 09:17:00 AM CDT
Problem - Some small number of Docs are not competent. Real harm is done. They make the news, patients read the news, governing bodies want to act.
ABIM steps in and says - well, we can certify every 2 years. Governing bodies, not knowing any better say - yes, yes, let's do that!
You know it won't work - you've convinced me it's not helpful, but the problem (see above) still exists.
We do have evidence that local admins haven't done a good job of protecting patients from the rogues.
If you accept the problem (I'm asking) and you reject the every 2 year solution, then what?
People want to be assured that every Doctor out there is at least minimally competent. If not ABIM certification, what do you suggest? Local oversight has demonstrably failed.
- Thu Apr 11, 10:30:00 AM CDT
Wes, I see this as an old conflict of town and gown. The academics have always used the private docs as a cash cow. You are a good doctor because you want to know everything you can to help your patients and you keep up. Most doctors in the trenches do keep up. This testing testing testing is all about money money money. Just like the Walgreens NP is all about money. If you follow the money it does not lead to the practicing physician but instead to the payors. The Academics have been cut like we have and they have gone after us for more money.
- Thu Apr 11, 03:53:00 PM CDT
Hope this does not mean you will need to curtail blogging activity in order to perform for your potentially weekly recertification hoops..
- Thu Apr 11, 04:33:00 PM CDT
Board exams are easily gamed as they are not about what you know, but how well you can play the board game - just don't charge us to take them... since they are a joke.
Sadly, Family Practice is gonna be dusted I fear, due to the expansion at Walgreens and others to come. Plenty of MDs will sell each other out and do this gig too, as you are your own worst enemies, and others steal your stuff because you took the wrong fork in the road a while back. So soon 100% MDs will be employees (the master plan achieved).
- Thu Apr 11, 08:06:00 PM CDT
Just wait until MOC is linked to MOL (maintenance of licensure). Resistance is futile; you will be assimilated.
- Thu Apr 11, 09:45:00 PM CDT
Resistance is NOT futile! Ohio has resisted, New York is trying. Check out the work of the Academy of American Physicians and Surgeons at aapsonline.org for more.
- Wed Apr 24, 04:04:00 PM CDT
Even if your certificate isn't time-limited (ie, prior to 1990) the ABIM recommends that you voluntarily recertify, since this improves patient care (although no evidence supports this assertion).
Dr. Christine Cassel is President and CEO of the ABIM, so that recommendation stems down from her. I mean no disrespect in my following comment. Dr. Cassel is extraordinarily accomplished, including MACP, medical school dean, adviser to President Obama, listed as one of the 200 most influential people in healthcare, served on the IOM committee that authored "To Err is Human," and has authored scores of papers and books. By comparison, I have accomplished nothing.
However, I am perplexed by the fact that the ABIM website states Dr. Cassel boarded in 1979 and has never voluntarily recertified in IM. I have certified or recertified three times and I was still popping zits in 1979.
How come the people that dictate the rules, in the interest of patient safety, are not subject to them? Again, no disrespect to Dr. Cassel, who I admire. However, this is a reasonable question that deserves an answer. Why is the rule important for me and not for her? Should my patients be kept safer than hers? If so, why?
- Tue May 14, 01:43:00 PM CDT
Dr Richard Baron will replace Dr Cassel in leading the ABIM in June 2013. Dr. Baron certified in 1981 and has NEVER voluntarily recertified. The ABIM leadership hypocrisy continues as does my ranting.....
- Wed May 22, 12:33:00 PM CDT
Just took my ABIM recertification exam I do think there is some learning value to it. But really its a bit too much. Its not fair for physicians in their 60`s and 70's to take a full day exam. And the anxiety the exam creates is not nice. ABIM needs to have a better system
- Mon Oct 21, 01:19:00 PM CDT
ABIM recertification is administered by a third party.
The test room is crowded, very noisy, with test takers taking other examinations who type their answers hence you hear keyboard noise for at least 6 hours.
When you sign in you have to empty your pockets, remove your watch etc, and leave your wallet in a locker. Doctors are treated like a criminal.
They scan you palm prior to entering or leaving the room to make sure you are YOU and not someone else!!
If you take a break in the middle of the test to go to the BR, the clock continues to tick and you will lose time. You will have to go through security and palm scan again prior to re-entering exam room.
They make you feel like a criminal and treated with little respect. The test room was so noisy it was difficult to concentrate.
I tried to use the noise-cancelling headphone, however it was so old, uncomfortable and large that I removed it after a few minutes and used the harsh (probably the cheapest they could find) earplugs they had provided me. You cannot bring your own modern noise-cancelling headphone.
There is no mouse pad either. You can hear the test takers next to you moving their mouse on the table.
Taking ABIM recertification experience was truly torture.
Doctors must unite to stop this nonsense.
- Sat Feb 01, 10:35:00 AM CST


text:
Tell a lie: Talk yourself into advancing
Maybe it's time to set aside all those "know yourself" advice books and try lying to yourself about who you are. You are a finance whiz. You are a sales guru. You are a brilliant writer.
Any successful careerist needs to be these things. But most of us are not really all of them. The skills are too diverse even for the mind of an overachiever like you. Why not try telling yourself you're all these things and see what happens? After all, the first step to being great at something is to believe that you are great at it. Then you will attack the task at hand expecting to succeed.
You can say you don't like selling. You can say you're above it. But you may never get the chance to know because people who can't sell themselves can't get jobs. So, okay, you don't have to sell cars (though you should study the people who do– the best are incredible sales people and could sell anything to anyone.) But you do have to sell yourself to get a job, and you have to sell your ideas in order to keep your job interesting. (Singles, take note: Dating is the most important sales game of your life.)
The hardest thing about sales is taking the time to understand what the person you're selling to cares about, and in which scenario that person is a good listener. People who say, "I'm bad at sales," are people who, for the most part, refuse to take the time to understand people. How embarrassing. So even if you are bad at understanding people, don't announce it to the world by saying you can't sell. Call yourself a salesperson and practice all the time.
I first learned the importance of faking it when I had to present financials to my angel investors. I had to pretend that I did not score in the bottom 20 percent of the math section of the graduate record exams (GREs). I had to say confidently, "Oh, I have everything explained in an Excel spreadsheet." And then I had to hire someone to teach me to use Excel.
Today, I don't run numbers as fast as a real finance wiz, but I have confidence because I told my investors I knew what I was doing, thereby forcing myself to learn. Thank goodness, because each of us needs to be a finance whiz.
You need to understand broad corporate financial goals in order to place your own projects in context. You need to understand how to manage a dynamic budget without tripping on the question, "How did you get to the number on line six?" Most CEOs did not move up the ladder via financial positions, but you never hear a CEO say he's bad at finance. In an ambitious career there is no room for financial weaknesses. So don't ever say you don't do numbers.
Here's a scenario: You write an email that consists of one 25-line paragraph with no breaks. No one reads it. At best, it looks unintelligible because it's too long a paragraph for email. At worst, it is unintelligible. But still, in this case you are a writer; you are just a terrible writer.
The list of scary scenarios is endless: If you send a disorganized report to your boss, she won't understand it. If you have typos in your resume, you'll lose interviews. Everyone's career is dependent on their talent for communication. And in the age of email, everyone's a writer.
So take responsibility for your own communications, and function like you are a top-tier writer. This means outlining first so that you're organized, writing to the point, and proofreading. A few of you will need to take a grammar class. Some of you, who have made some of my past projects miserable, will need to take ten grammar classes.
So lie to yourself. Tell yourself you are great at sales, writing, and finance, and you might not be great, but you will get a lot better. And even a small improvement in each of these skills will add up to a large improvement in your career trajectory.


text:
The last couple of days, Sudan's President Omar al Bashir, and South Sudan's President Salva Kiir, have been meeting here in Addis Ababa, ostensibly to try and break through a number of contentious issues between the two nations that have kept them on the brink of open warfare for some time now.
For those not familiar with the conflict between Sudan and South Sudan, try here for an overview. However in brief, there are several critical issues on the table at this particular time. One is the status of the disputed town of Abyei and its environs- control of which gives great leverage over the rich oil fields in South Sudan. Abyei has been a flashpoint between the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) and the Sudan Peoples Liberation Army (SPLA) for years, and has its own UN peacekeeping base to prove it.
A second issue is restarting the flow of oil from those southern oil fields. While the fields themselves and the pumping infrastructure are all in southern-held territory, the pipeline runs through Sudan and exits at Port Sudan, all controlled by Khartoum. Therefore while profits from the sale of oil will accrue to the southern government in Juba, Sudan has a right to levy fees on the oil as it runs through it. Loss of the oil-fields to the south were arguably the biggest sore-point in the 2005 Naivasha peace accords for Bashir, so it was little surprise when Khartoum started to demand vast- almost unsustainable- fees on South Sudan for the right to pump oil through its sovereign territory. In response, Juba shut down pumping altogether, denying both north and south any oil revenue at all. Khartoum is demanding recompense for unpaid oil fees, and the south is demanding Khartoum reduce its tax on oil. While steps have been taken to resolve this and reach an agreement on the final per-barrel cost, it will still be months before oil starts flowing again, taking a big swipe out of Sudan's economy, but all but crippling South Sudan's.
The third major point of contention between the two nations are the two ongoing conflicts, one in South Kordofan/Nuba Mountains, and the other in Blue Nile State. In each case, rebels backed by Juba (a fact generally acknowledged, but denied by Kiir) are fighting Sudanese government forces in northern territory, ostensibly in defence of southern-allied civilian populations who are being targeted by Khartoum. From their side, the rebels (SPLA-North and other allied militia) claim that the SAF is carrying out campaigns of ethnic slaughter and aerial bombardments of civilians populations. Hundreds of thousands of mostly southern-allied Sudanese have been displaced over the last couple of years and are living in camps.
According to media reports (somewhat reserved in tone, and with clear caveats), progress was made during the talks this week. The Africa Union mediator, former South African leader Thabo Mbeki, stated that both Bashir and Kiir had agreed to actually implement an agreement on having a buffer-zone between their respective territories. They also agreed to create a timetable for implementing outstanding agreements, which should be created in the next week or so. After this, it's argued that the two nations could be in a position to move towards a joint administration of Abyei, and begin pumping oil again.
In summary, what came out of the talks was:
1. A commitment to implement agreements
2. An agreement to write up a timetable moving towards those agreements
What's important to note is that the agreements in question were pretty much all negotiated back in September 2012– it's just that over the last 4 months, neither party has actually implemented what they both said they agreed to. Now they've agreed that they need to implement what they've agreed. And agreed to agree to a timetable to implement what they've agreed. It's clearly all very agreeable between the two nations.
Which of course, it isn't. Neither Kiir nor Bashir made any statement after the talks. The reason why nothing's been done for four months is that neither side trusts the other, and the two nations remain, if not on the brink of war, then at least wallowing in mutual animosity. In fact, a source tells me, the presence of large numbers of women around the Sheraton Addis over the conference weekend indicates that the diplomatic parties may well be more interested in the extra-curricular activities on offer, as actually reaching any meaningful deal.
Omar al Bashir and Salva Kiir may have shaken hands and smiled for the cameras, but I suspect this has more to do with wanting to avoid international sanctions for being belligerent, than any genuine warmth, hope, or interest in compromise the two leaders have towards one another. Not to mince words, Bashir and Kiir are enemies. Both are military men, and both have thrown their respective armies at each other on and off for the last thirty and more years. Bashir took Sudan in a military coup in 1983, and the second Sudanese Civil War took off shortly afterwards. Kiir was one of the most senior military commanders under SPLM/A leader John Garang. And this was no gentlemans' conflict, no Geneva conventions. The war was a vicious, bloody one, with terrible atrocities committed by both sides.
More than three decades of unresolved hatred lies between the two men, and whatever show they may put on for the diplomats, there is nothing to suggest in either man's actions that there is any interest in reconciliation- nor would there be any real reason to suggest such a thing should happen. The peace between north and south, and the subsequent referendum on southern independence, is entirely externally engineered. South Sudan owes its independence to the intervention of what was then the world's largest humanitarian operation, coupled by regional (and almost certainly clandestine Western) military support, driven by interests in the south's oil and mineral reserves, which are substantial. Were it not for Operation Lifeline Sudan, advocates in US congress, the Cold War politics that pitched US interest in the south's resources against Khartoum, and the pro-SPLM/A stance of several East African governments (particularly Uganda's Museveni), there's little question that Juba would be nothing more than a district-level hub in Khartoum-controlled Sudan by now, and the SPLA likely running a low-level insurgency from the bush, like countless other sub-Saharan rebel groups.
There's more than just old hatred driving the inaction between the two sides though. The thing is, it may have taken a different guise, but the war is still going on. Bashir wants to crush South Sudan. Losing the south has been the biggest blow to his Presidency. From a northern perspective, southern independence is an incredible loss of face. It represents a military defeat and an economic emasculation. From the perspective of the political psyche of Khartoum, a vast swathe of Sudanese territory (and resources) has been annexed to a sworn enemy. Bashir knows he cannot retake the south militarily at this time- in part because the SAF does not have the military capacity, and in part because western powers would not stand idly by and let him.
For Bashir, the best option is to encourage South Sudan to fail as a state. Already the world's newest nation, South Sudan is also perhaps the world's most fragile (depending on the various ways it can be stacked up against Somalia). The dispute over oil revenues provides a perfect opportunity for Bashir to choke Juba. By raising taxes on oil through the north, either the south was going to find its revenue slowly held to higher and higher ransom while feeding the coffers (and the war-machine) of the north or, as happened, be forced to cut off oil altogether. And while this equates to a blow for Khartoum's revenues, Sudan at least has other sources of income. South Sudan, by contrast, basically has nothing. 90-odd percent of its income comes from that oil, and without it, it has been surfing the edge of bankruptcy since. Already inflation in the south is out of control, unemployment rampant, and the government (frail and corrupt to begin with) is all but broke, propped up by the band-aid of international assistance and little else.
At the same time, Bashir has been quietly running ammunition to dissenters within the south. Far from being a coherent nation, at the time of independence there were nearly 30 disparate militia groups-many of them divided along ethnic lines- and bringing these various armies to heel has been an imperfect process. The intense violence seen between Nuer and Dinka groups over the last 18 months is testimony to the very fragile threads that hold the 'nation' together- only ever at its strongest when united against the common foe of the north. With 'peace', fractures appear and groups turn on each other, settling old scores and creating new ones. Evidence suggests Bashir has been fueling this by supplying bullets to anti-SPLA forces, further weakening Juba's ability to manage the state's affairs.
But delaying the flow of oil is not just a tactic that Khartoum is using to its advantage. While Sudan may have more income sources than South Sudan, the reduced oil revenues are still a critical shortfall in its annual accounting, and Kiir knows this. In a way, both nations are now relying on their outside supporters: For Khartoum, China, and for Juba, the western 'International Community'- and also China.
Kiir knows that Bashir is currently the weakest he's ever been. The loss of the south undermined Bashir's authority and the confidence of people (including some in the SAF) of his capacity to rule. The International Criminal Court has issued warrants for Bashir's arrest in conjunction with crimes against humanity, as well as against several of his key leadership, as well as accompanying sanctions- further weakening both his political position, and his authority. Not only have assessments of SAF military capability demonstrated a vastly weaker force than it has been in the past, but there have been several attempts at popular demonstrations and uprisings a-la Arab Spring- which have been quickly, fiercely and quietly put down. None the less, the fact that these protests have happened demonstrates his weakening position. Further to that, recent analysis of his nexus of power- political, military and religious- shows he is more vulnerable now than at any point in the last couple of decades.
For this reason too, Kiir is unlikely to take any meaningful steps to rein in the SPLA-N. Although he publically denies supporting them, nobody seriously questions the links between the rebels (southerners operating in northern territory) and Juba. The ongoing fighting sucks up Khartoum's resources and, somewhere in there, with a weakened SAF in the mix, no doubt Kiir is hoping that perhaps there may even be an opportunity to gain a conventional upper-hand. After all, only a few years ago a column of Darfur rebels made it all the way to Omdurman, on the outskirts of Khartoum, before they were destroyed. I am sure that in his happy place, Kiir envisages the potential of pro-southern rebels breaching SAF defences and moving on the capital, or if not, then creating enough political space to allow a popular uprising to foment.
Interestingly, the south continues to hold the sympathy card, at least as far as Western support goes. A hangover from the days when the SPLM/A and the South Sudanese were seen as victims of northern aggression during the 80s and 90s (courtesy, in a large part, due to western media and supporters in US Congress), the west continues to sympathise with the southerners, with stories of ethnic cleansing and bombing raids by Antonovs in South Kordofan and Unity State featuring predominately in the narrative. The fact that the SPLA-N is in part responsible for stirring up this renewed aggression (most atrocities carried out by SAF and pro-north militia were ostensibly attempts to weed out southern militia fighters) doesn't get as much mention. Nor, due in part to limited media and observer access, do claims of bombings and killings by northern forces get a lot of critical analysis- they are reported at face value (with that very caveat- 'reported')- which is all the south needs. Meanwhile, a friend closer to informants than I am tells me that in fact, in some of these cases, there's reason to think that many of these accounts of bombings are in fact being made up by the south to bolster their political position.
Both Kiir and Bashir are playing the long game here. Bashir would like nothing more than to see the south implode- ideally, in his books, without having to lift a military finger, which keeps him 'clean' in the eyes of the international community. Delaying the flow of oil as long as possible, for example by stringing out internationally-mediated negotiations, will play right into this game. Kiir, on the other hand, is hoping that by keeping pressure- military and economic- on an increasingly fragile north, may yet give him the upper hand and weaken Bashir's hold on power until he's overthrown or replaced by the military. Kiir's game is a particularly high-stakes one: The north has more reserves than the south and can probably hold out far longer, but he may be counting either on the current trend of MENA nations to revolt against unpopular despots, or the fact that the international community simply can't afford to let South Sudan fail, and will prop it up whatever it takes, even while the economy chokes. In the meantime, there are enough regional powers no doubt quietly sinking funds into the SPLA against the SAF (Museveni hasn't gone anywhere) that the SPLA-N is unlikely to run out of support just yet.
Left to their own devices, it's doubtful that the two nations could avoid war, almost certain that they wouldn't make significant headway in building a sustainable and cooperative peace. There are a few wild-cards in the mix though. Western support is one. As mentioned, the extent to which the US, the UN, Europe, other nations and aid groups prop up the almost non-existent South Sudanese economy will be a factor in how long Juba can hold out against Khartoum. The pressure these parties bring to bear to force a grudging resolution is also in the mix- and clearly, it continues to bring both parties to the negotiating table, albeit leaving plenty of room for delay tactics. The Chinese also play a big part here- with the potential to either offset western agendas, or reinforce them. One thing is clear, however, and that is that with the unpopularity of NATO involvement in Libya, and the public-relations disasters that were the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, there is little chance of significant western engagement in the Sudans to intervene should things get messier, and both sides know this.
One nation that does have both capacity and political will to intervene is Ethiopia, which already has forces deployed around Abyei and continues to host peace negotiations. I won't say much more about that, but for anybody interested, I'd suggest looking at the Rennaissance Dam project currently underway on Ethiopia's Blue Nile, and the negative reaction it's received from Cairo and, pertinently, Khartoum. Then ask whether in fact there could be some sympathy towards opponents of Khartoum as a result, particularly rebel groups operating in Blue Nile state and undermining the current regime's capacity. Just a thought.
The piece that gets periodically touted as a possible solution for southern economic independence is the construction of an oil pipeline out of Kenya, instead of Sudan. There was talk at one stage of this being bankrolled by China, and depending on who I talk to and the angle of the sunshine, I hear either that groundwork is underway, or its been abandoned as a bad idea. At the very least, such a pipeline would take many years to build and would offer no short-term respite. It would also have to run through extremely insecure terrain- through zones fought over by warring South Sudanese tribes, then through areas in northern Kenya similarly afflicted by tribal warfare, and finally exiting on Kenya's troubled coastline, where seperatists in Mombasa as well as ethnic rivalries in coastal areas further north continue to raise their head. Not to mention making a big shiny target for the disgruntled Somali militant element within Kenya. According to the most recent snippet of analysis I heard, the cost of the pipeline is so prohibitive, South Sudan's current oil reserves are insufficient to make the new pipeline worthwhile.
I don't want to sound hopeless. There's always hope. However thin that sliver of light might be. And international pressure (particularly from the Chinese quarter) has potential. So too might a significant undermining of Bashir's position, should that trend continue, as he may be forced to make concessions from a place of weakness. However, as another observer has pointed out, you have to question whether a meaningful cooperative peace between Sudan and South Sudan is possible with two enemies such as Bashir and Kiir at the helms of their respective governments. Extrapolating further, given that both nations have governments that are deeply entrenched with military personnel- men with direct combat experience against their foe- doesn't inspire many positive thoughts. However, perhaps as one generation passes and another rises, if the prospect of another all-out war like the 1983-2005 one can be avoided, perhaps there'll be the chance to build true reconciliation.
In the meantime, I think we can expect to see continued stalling, to see Bashir's trademark diplomatic two-step, and Kiir to continue to play the international sympathy card, while very deliberately running his own violent agenda. Progress, such that it might be, will most likely be drip-fed, with more talk than action. Fighting by proxy-militia is a given, and will happen north and south of the border, and when the pressure isn't on Bashir on his side, then it's likely that he'll find ways to invest spare capacity in stirring up disgruntled populations within the south in an effort to undermine his foe. If the oil starts flowing again- and it'll still be months at best before it does- then it'll be an action begrudged on both sides, and probably muscled through with some heavy-hitting diplomacy and some not-so-subtle carrots and sticks.
In short, change, if any, will be slow coming, unwillingly shared, and unlikely to make much difference for the millions of Sudanese on both sides of the border suffering from conflict, from economic marginalization, and from the disease and malnutrition that are the hallmarks of mass displacement in harsh environments.
Note: My apologies for the lack of sources and URLs on this post. I'm not a journalist, so my rigor probably isn't what it should be when it comes to keeping notes and sources. I've collected the information above over a number of weeks & months from various web sources, but my internet connectivity at the moment isn't really strong enough to spend a lot of time scouring old tweets and links for original material. If I get time later I'll try and link to info as I rediscover it. In the meantime, feel free to call me on anything you think is inaccurate. -MA


text:
Monday, September 28, 2009
indian summer
Posted by karen at 9:30 PM 7 comments
Thursday, September 24, 2009
more peaches
Posted by karen at 10:48 PM 6 comments
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Molly Mormon
Posted by karen at 9:47 PM 17 comments
a room with a view
Posted by karen at 9:28 PM 7 comments
Monday, September 14, 2009
Day 8: Quite strenuous hike at Tonto Natural Bridge. [more on that later]. We went camping with Marc's cousins Michael and Alice this weekend [more on that later].
We've been a little laid up around here with some sort of insidious stomach thing. Everybody but Marc and Caroline has had it. (thus far). Needless to say, there hasn't been a whole lot of exercising going on around here, unless my exercise in futility counts.
Posted by karen at 6:13 PM 7 comments
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Fitness Comittment Update
Friday, Day 5: Spinning Class. It's crucial to have good music with a strong beat in spinning class. I can do anything to a rhythm for awhile. I love a good spinning class. This one had excellent music, a lot of 80s.
Saturday, Day 6: Susan (my sis) came into town from Yuma and we needed a break from our kids (eight total) so we loaded them into the car(s) and took them to the gym so we could have an uninterrupted conversation on the treadmills. This wasn't a repeat for me, since I wasn't running. I would call it power-walking with a steep incline. Susan might call it tripping on the treadmill every 10 steps.
Tuesday, Day 7: Vinyasa Flow Yoga. Adore is too tame a word to describe my feelings for yoga. Especially the group nap at the end with my new best friends/yoga homies under the guise of "breathing exercises". Little Miss-Contortionist-Yogi-Chick-Teacher got a little persnickety when I didn't want to wake up after class was over. I wanted to remind her in a gentle, Zen-like fashion that child care is for two hours in this gym, and that I still had one hour left before I had to pick up Charlotte [who wore her Cinderella getup to the gym today]. But I left before she called security.
McThrewHisBackOutLastWeek would be proud that I'm maximizing my gym membership.
This is going great! I do enjoy mixing it up a bit. Off to prep my Isagenix protein shake...
Posted by karen at 12:45 PM 12 comments
Friday, September 4, 2009
Favorite Photos of August
Posted by karen at 10:06 PM 4 comments
Heaven help me
Posted by karen at 9:51 PM 4 comments
Thursday, September 3, 2009
skinny genes and skinny jeans
It's been a fantastic summer. When you adopt laissez-faire eating habits, it's always a fantastic summer. As a direct result, my adipose cells proliferated faster than nukes under the Reagan Administration.
Posted by karen at 1:10 PM 17 comments


text:
We Are
Shine is the premier salon destination in the Montclair Village. We believe in having fun and being creative, while keeping an eye towards beauty and fashion.
We Do
Shine's stylists are well versed in the latest cuts, styles and treatments that will help you feel beautiful and confident as soon as you step outside.
We Offer
Shine stands behind every product offered
and used from Sojourn, L'Oréal Homme,
Pureology and Keratin Complex.
The Studio
Shine the Hair Studio opened in 2009. Stylists Cynthia Contreras and Kristen Brill, who had worked together since 2002, were inspired to create a space that was comfortable and fun, and where their clients could feel pampered and relaxed. In 2012, Cynthia and Kristen welcomed Ildiko Shedd to the studio.
In addition to keeping their eyes on the trends of the day, Cynthia and Kristen continually look for opportunities to learn more about the latest cuts, treatments and make-up applications. Indeed, over the past handful of years the duo has taken classes offered by Redken, Scruples, L'Oréal and Framesi and many others.
Cynthia Contreras
Cynthia has been in the beauty business for more than 20 years. In addition to her beauty school education, Cynthia has learned from Vidal Sassoon and Aveda trained stylists, Aveda and M•A•C make-up artists and from classes sponsored by Sojourn, Framesi, Keratin Complex and IT&LY.
The combination of experience and education makes Cynthia one of the most sought after hair and make-up stylists in the Montclair Village, where she has worked for more than a decade.
To reach Cynthia via email, please click here.
"I love meeting new people and discovering what will make them look their very best. We want our clients to come in and feel special, like they're part of our family."
Kristen Brill
Kristen Brill launched her beauty career more than 10 years ago. Over the past decade, Kristen has taken cutting and coloring classes at Redken, Scruples, L'Oréal, Sojourn, Framesi as well as in-depth product courses sponsored by Keratin Complex, Framesi and IT&LY.
Kristen's fun and quirky spirit is evident the minute the doors at Shine open. At the same time, she takes great care in listening to her clients and bringing their ideas to life so, they leave feeling confident and beautiful.
To reach Kristen via email, please click here.
"I want my clients to have fun and come out of Shine looking and feeling good. I like taking people out of their box and into a fresh look."
Ildiko Shedd
Ildi comes to Shine with years of experience at some of the area's top salons. Formally educated at Paul Mitchell-San Francisco, she has expanded her skills to include Vidal Sassoon cutting techniques, INOA Color Certification, Redken Advanced Foil and Highlight Certification and L'Oreal Advanced Color Training.
Ildi is masterful at combining creative color and highlights with classic styling and precision cuts.
To reach Ildi via email, please click here.
"Finding the perfect look to make my clients shine is what makes me happiest."
Shine the Hair Studio is the premier salon in the Montclair Village of Oakland. Shine stylists have an eye for beauty and are dedicated to finding just the right look for every client.
This is how we make you Shine:
Haircuts ↓
- women, men, teens
- consultation
- wash
- cut
- blow dry and style
Styling ↓
- special days
- special events
- any style, any time
Color ↓
- roots touch up
- semi, demi, permanent
- highlights, lowlights
Bridal ↓
- consultation and exploration before
- style and make-up on the day
Make-up ↓a touch of glamour for a special day
Smoothing Treatments ↓soft and frizz-free hair with Coppola Keratin Complex
Please visit to learn more about specific Services and book an appointment now.
Shine only offers and uses products that have been tested and approved by Cynthia and Kristen.
L'Oréal Homme ↓
Shine uses dyes by IT&LY, Framesi and L'Oréal Homme.
Please visit to book an appointment at Shine.
For your convenience, a confirmation email will be sent upon booking.
Late appointments may be available. Contact your stylist directly to check.
Shine asks for a 24-hour cancelation courtesy. For any appointments missed or canceled before the 24-hour courtesy, Shine will charge 50 percent of the appointment fee.
Shine the Hair Studio is located in the heart of Oakland's Montclair Village.
Our entrance is between Starbucks and Edward Jones, up the stairs.
We are open Tuesday through Saturday, 9AM to 6PM.
2063 Mountain Boulevard
Suite 7
Oakland, CA 94611
(510) 336-1036
Please visit to book an appointment.


text:
One of the many reasons I love the arrival of spring is that it allows me to turn down the home furnace, open up the windows, and soak in the fresh air. As a self-professed energy geek, springtime also puts a smile on my face because it is the time of year when I crunch the numbers on dollars saved and carbon emissions avoided from our investments in home energy efficiency. This year, with the release of our new book Cooler Smarter: Practical Steps to Low-Carbon Living, I'm sharing all the number crunching I do on household energy with you. Read more >
A Spring in My Step Thanks to Home Energy Efficiency
Jeff Deyette, director of state policy & analysis, Clean Energy
April 19, 2012 9:20 AM EDT


text:
Australian Outback Experience with Sheep Station, Food and Wine
- 天數: 6 小時 (左右)
- Small Group
- Stockman's Tucker
- Sheep Muster
- Sheep Shearing
- Aussie BBQ
- Boomerang Throwing
- Whip Cracking
- Canoelands Orchard Tobruk
- Wine Tasting at Tizzana Winery
- Ebenezer Church & Windsor
- Experienced Driver Guides
- Lunch (1)
- Detailed and informative commentary
- Travel in an air-conditioned coach
ItineraryToday you'll enjoy a real Aussie bush experience. You'll head out over the Sydney Harbour Bridge and on to the Great Northern Road. The 70 minute journey will take you through some of rural NSW and views of lush bush landscapes.
Tobruk Sheep StationOffering a truly authentic experience, Tobruk Sheep Station will immerse you into the Australian bush and life on an outback sheep station. On arrival you'll be welcomed by stockmen on horseback and led to the nearby Drovers Camp.
Stockman's TuckerOnce at the Drovers Camp you will be treated to traditional stockman's tucker with billy tea and damper around the campfire. Made and served the old way – straight up – the billy tea is boiled over the campfire, while the damper dough is placed straight onto the embers. While this tucker tastes great, make sure you leave room for lunch.
Sheep MusterNow you'll see the amazing patience and skill of the stockman at work with his sheepdog. In order to get the sheep to a particular pen on the property, the stockman directs his canine partner as it moves quickly and expertly among the 50 strong herd. With what looks like effortless skill and speed, the dog will move over, under and around the sheep to achieve his task. Have the camera ready to take a snap when the dog lands himself on the back of a wayward sheep.
Sheep ShearingThe age-old profession of sheep shearing requires a great deal of practice, skill and agility and here you'll see it firsthand. While seated in the most unique shearing shed in the country, you'll watch the shearers at work while the life of the shearer himself is unfolded. Under the guidance of a veteran, you can even try your own hand at the art of shearing an anxious sheep!
Aussie BBQAfter all that excitement, it's time to enjoy some real Aussie hospitality with a mouthwatering BBQ. Today you'll be treated to an Aussie grill of steak, sausages and burgers, freshly baked damper rolls, green salad and more. Oh, and don't forget dessert – traditional Aussie Lamington cake – just delicious.
Boomerang ThrowingBoomerangs were traditionally used by the Aboriginal people as a hunting weapon, but here at Tobruk they're used for fun. Once you've had an expert demonstration, you can give it a go yourself – just keep an eye out for that returning Boomerang.
Whip CrackingReckon you could crack a whip? It's not as easy as it looks. Now our able stockmen will demonstrate the use of the whip in the mustering process. The actual cracking is achieved in a fraction of a second, by breaking the sound barrier. After the expert demonstration, why not let the stockmen show you how it's done.
Tizzana Winery
Wind down with a relaxing wine tasting at Tizzana Winery. Sample its cabernet sauvignon, shiraz and muscat varieties, and well as olives, accompanied by cheese and biscuits.
Ebenezer Church & Windsor
Next up is a visit to Australia's oldest church, Ebenezer, built in 1809. Top off this highlight day with a stop in the colonial town of Windsor. Enjoy afternoon tea (own expense) or browse through
the boutique stores, before you return to Sydney.
Other Important Information:
Departs: Sydney Monday & Friday Pick Up starts from 7.00 AM
Returns: at Around 5.30PM
Duration: 9.00 Hours Hours
Hotel Pick Up: We do CBD hotel pick ups. Please select your pick up while booking online. If your hotel is not listed, then mention it in 'Special Requirements'.
Hotel Drop off: On request.
Group Tour: Please book direct. Please check 'Specials' and receive discounts. A group of 12 or more people are picked up from any Sydney Metro area for a private tour.
What to bring: An open mind to enjoy with a smiling face . Please dress according to the weather. In summer, you must bring your hat, sunscreen and sunglasses. Always wear comfortable shoes, umbrella and raincoats are handy if it rains.